It’s not just atheists with a diversity problem… » « Blogathon raises $5,483 for the Secular Student Alliance!

Photos from the first gay marriages in New York

You can see all 60 here, but here are some of my favorites:

I’m not going to lie, the older gay couples fill me with the most joy. I just want to hug them and tell them how happy I am that they made it through all the years of crap to finally see this day. I can’t wait for the day where the whole country looks back and says, “Wow, can you remember when bigots used to keep gay people from marrying?”

…Who’s cutting onions in here?

It’s not just atheists with a diversity problem… » « Blogathon raises $5,483 for the Secular Student Alliance!

Comments

  3. says

    This is a very touching, proud moment for every normal, progressive person out there. How can anybody oppose these happy couples declaring their love for each other?I’m also in tears right now.

  4. Neal says

    They should not have had to wait, but I’m happy for them, and I congratulate them.

  7. Sarah Maddox says

    I has the biggest happy right now. I agree, this room must be filled with onions.*wipes up progressive bleeding-heart tears*

  8. Azkyroth says

    Someone oughta do a photo montage video of these juxtaposed with pictures of Phelps’ gang and various news headlines of politicans ranting about the evils of gay marriage.

  10. Shaun says

    I think my favorite is the first one where the one man is hugging who I assume to be his two young daughters.  They don’t care, their daddy is happy and so they’re happy, too.  How is that anything but the picture-perfect example of a good, functional family?  Man and woman only being sacred, indeed!

  11. Grant Gordon says

    Dammit, you’re not supposed to make me all teary at work. It’s wonderful to see so much joy on their faces, how can anyone be against happiness like that?

  14. Pwspearing says

    It’s worth noting, in case there had been any doubt, that the people in these pictures don’t seem any different from participants in straight civil marriages.  Same expressions, same family and friends, same overall impression.  The idea that there’s something fundamentally different simply doesn’t hold up.  One can only hope that before long it will not be unusual enough to rate as “news”.

  15. Riptide says

    Of course, there’s the corollary of all those still living whose partners died before they could get a chance to marry. You can shed a somewhat bittersweet tear for them, too, and try to make sure that they never have to suffer the same kinds of injustice again.

  16. Meghan Lazerson says

    Makes me remember my own wedding day.  Now, as I look at my sleeping infant daughter, we need to work on normalizing ways for gay couples to have children.  They should be able to become foster parents or adoptive parents as easily as any couple.  We don’t need the “one mother, one father” nonsense.  We need parents who unconditionally love their children and are committed to raising them.

  18. ladyvumvinie says

    can’t understand why they call it ‘gay marriage’ if lesbians are included. But oh well, so damn happy for them!

  19. JediPsychologist says

    I think #16 and #51 on the website you linked are my favorites. And yeah, someone is definitely cutting onions in here.

  22. bible belt atheist says

    I just cannot imagine the sheer joy these folks are grooving on today. Especially the old couples. I watched how gays were treated in the bible belt growing up in same, and to think that they’ve had to put up with that shit for SO.FUCKING.LONG. Face it,bigots. You’re losing.

  23. says

    Well, judging from all the smiles, those people are all super-gay. Also, the Muppets cracked me up.And for some strange reason, my vision is blurry and my eyes are shining. Can’t explain it.

  25. SkepticalPixie says

    The ones you highlighted here were some of my favorites from the article.  The old couples are my favorites, too. It must be so amazing for them to finally have their relationship legally recognized after so many years without even a hope of that possibility.

  27. loreleion says

    Because most (in my experience) women who like women use the term ‘gay’ as gender neutral (‘gay women’).  I don’t really like the word ‘lesbian’ as it’s mostly used as a noun and I think sexuality/gender identity terms should be used as adjectives.

  30. says

    Ricky and Rod got married! Hadn’t realised same-sex-puppet marriage was legal, New York is truly progressive =PLuckily I’m not at work but the inane grin plastered across my mug makes me glad I live alone.

  31. Clare Milner says

    Dammit the smell of onions made it all the way over the pond! :) Well done New York! Awesome photos. Reminds me of the joy I felt attending a Civil Partnership last year (why we had to invent something different when we have a perfectly serviceable civil marriage ceremony is beyond me but it’s a step in the right direction I guess).

  32. says

    Beautiful photos.And what a wicked tattoo on the young lady second photo from bottom. That must have taken a long time. But I am sure today made the hours spent at the tattoo parlor totally worth it:)

  33. says

    “I’m not going to lie, the older gay couples fill me with the most joy. I just want to hug them and tell them how happy I am that they made it through all the years of crap to finally see this day.”I had that thought as well.  Just imagine what it must be like, to live for so long, going through all of the bad treatment and discrimination, and to finally have a day when (even if things aren’t perfect) there’s a big step forward and hope.

  35. Michael Makovi says

    I’m confused. Wouldn’t it be easier to simply tell the government that henceforth, it shall have no jurisdiction whatsoever in marriage? For the life of me, I cannot figure out why the government is doing anything to regulate marriage in the first place. It’s simply not within its rightful jurisdiction. I’m a heterosexual, and plan on marrying a member of the opposite sex, but I sure as hell don’t want the government in my bedroom? So why legalize homosexual marriage? Wouldn’t be better to make it illegal for the government to interfere in marriage in the first place? Let marriage between a private contract between the partners involved, totally unregulated.

  36. Morpheus91 says

    Moments like these make me happy and redeem my faith in humanity, for a short while at least. ^_^

  38. Svlad Cjelli says

    Wait, I thought this was only about same-sex, so why is there an incestual Petrelli-wedding?(And why did that show fail so hard after the first season?)

  42. Laura Kaminker says

    Then why are you getting married? I also believe the govt has no place regulating relationships, so I have chosen not to legally marry.  I support equal marriage because I support equal rights (a no-brainer) but that doesn’t mean I am forced to aavail myself of it. If you really don’t believe the govt has jurisdiction over marriage, then don’t get married. If you do, then don’t bore us with this hypocrisy.

  43. says

    Laura, First off, I cannot be sure that the woman I end up marrying will agree with my libertarianism. So even if I don’t want to have anything to do with the government (including civil marriage), I cannot know whether the woman I’ll someday marry will agree with me there. So even if I despise the institution of civil marriage, perhaps my someday wife will want such a marriage anyway, and therefore, in the meantime, it behooves me to destroy that institution as much as I can. Even if she demands a civil marriage, nevertheless, the more I can destroy that institution in the meantime, the less she can expect me to be complicit in that institution by the time our wedding day comes.But to answer you in that fashion is to push you off with a reed. Let me give you a real answer:Firstly, in the simplest sense, marriage is nothing more than a contract. The same way that individuals can have contracts for financial or business purposes, and ought to have absolute freedom of contract without fear of government intervention and government prohibition of mutually-consenting contracts (Lochner), so too with marriage. A man and a woman – or a man and a man, or a man and a dog, or a man and a wooden table – ought to be able to set whatever contracts they want. If a man wants to give his power of attorney and hospital visitation rights to the mother of his children, or whether he wants to give those to his roommate, or to his homosexual romantic partner, or whatever, he ought to have that liberty. If marriage is a contract stipulating some sort of lifestyle union between two individuals (or, heck, twenty individuals), then *any* individuals ought to be able to form such a contract, and the government should not say that no, only members of the opposite sex can, e.g. receive each other’s hospital visitation rights. If twenty people want to give each other hospital visitation rights and declare each other their heirs, so be it, I say. This notion of limiting marriage to two individuals, and two individuals of the opposite sex, is absurd. Why cannot two people of the same sex, or twenty people, designate each other as “married” to each other for the purpose of whatever the financial and contractual impliciations of marriage are?Secondly, as much as it may horrify the readers of this blog, I am an Orthodox Jew. So for me, besides the contractual, legal aspects of marriage (as above), there is the purely theological aspect, namely marriage as a holy institution defined and mandated in a certain fashion by God. So I certainly do not want to eschew marriage; I merely want the government to stay the f’ing hell out marriage, and let me do it in my own Jewish manner, according to what I believe God wants, and not interfere. The same way that a Christian would not want the government regulating baptism, I don’t want the government regulating marriage. Marriage is *my* business for *me* to do the way *I* believe *my* religion mandates *me* to do *my* way. For the government to have *anything* to do with marriage whatsoever, such as banning homosexual marriage, is for the government to interfere with religion in a way I find unconscionable. As Roger Williams said, we need an absolute wall of separation between church and state, to protect the garden of the church from pernicious influence of the wilderness of the state. The same way I wouldn’t want Christians telling me, as a Jew, how to live my life, and making me live as a Christian, I don’t want the government telling *anyone* how to live their lives. We need to keep people from murdering and stealing and robbing and committing fraud, but beyond that, I say, “live and let live”, and I despise *any* form of coercion (governmental or otherwise) in which people presume to tell others how to live their lives.

  44. says

    Laura, First off, I cannot be sure that the woman I end up marrying will agree with my libertarianism. So even if I don’t want to have anything to do with the government (including civil marriage), I cannot know whether the woman I’ll someday marry will agree with me there. So even if I despise the institution of civil marriage, perhaps my someday wife will want such a marriage anyway, and therefore, in the meantime, it behooves me to destroy that institution as much as I can. Even if she demands a civil marriage, nevertheless, the more I can destroy that institution in the meantime, the less she can expect me to be complicit in that institution by the time our wedding day comes.But to answer you in that fashion is to push you off with a reed. Let me give you a real answer:Firstly, in the simplest sense, marriage is nothing more than a contract. The same way that individuals can have contracts for financial or business purposes, and ought to have absolute freedom of contract without fear of government intervention and government prohibition of mutually-consenting contracts (Lochner), so too with marriage. A man and a woman – or a man and a man, or a man and a dog, or a man and a wooden table – ought to be able to set whatever contracts they want. If a man wants to give his power of attorney and hospital visitation rights to the mother of his children, or whether he wants to give those to his roommate, or to his homosexual romantic partner, or whatever, he ought to have that liberty. If marriage is a contract stipulating some sort of lifestyle union between two individuals (or, heck, twenty individuals), then *any* individuals ought to be able to form such a contract, and the government should not say that no, only members of the opposite sex can, e.g. receive each other’s hospital visitation rights. If twenty people want to give each other hospital visitation rights and declare each other their heirs, so be it, I say. This notion of limiting marriage to two individuals, and two individuals of the opposite sex, is absurd. Why cannot two people of the same sex, or twenty people, designate each other as “married” to each other for the purpose of whatever the financial and contractual impliciations of marriage are?Secondly, as much as it may horrify the readers of this blog, I am an Orthodox Jew. So for me, besides the contractual, legal aspects of marriage (as above), there is the purely theological aspect, namely marriage as a holy institution defined and mandated in a certain fashion by God. So I certainly do not want to eschew marriage; I merely want the government to stay the f’ing hell out marriage, and let me do it in my own Jewish manner, according to what I believe God wants, and not interfere. The same way that a Christian would not want the government regulating baptism, I don’t want the government regulating marriage. Marriage is *my* business for *me* to do the way *I* believe *my* religion mandates *me* to do *my* way. For the government to have *anything* to do with marriage whatsoever, such as banning homosexual marriage, is for the government to interfere with religion in a way I find unconscionable. As Roger Williams said, we need an absolute wall of separation between church and state, to protect the garden of the church from pernicious influence of the wilderness of the state. The same way I wouldn’t want Christians telling me, as a Jew, how to live my life, and making me live as a Christian, I don’t want the government telling *anyone* how to live their lives. We need to keep people from murdering and stealing and robbing and committing fraud, but beyond that, I say, “live and let live”, and I despise *any* form of coercion (governmental or otherwise) in which people presume to tell others how to live their lives.

  45. says

    Laura, First off, I cannot be sure that the woman I end up marrying will agree with my libertarianism. So even if I don’t want to have anything to do with the government (including civil marriage), I cannot know whether the woman I’ll someday marry will agree with me there. So even if I despise the institution of civil marriage, perhaps my someday wife will want such a marriage anyway, and therefore, in the meantime, it behooves me to destroy that institution as much as I can. Even if she demands a civil marriage, nevertheless, the more I can destroy that institution in the meantime, the less she can expect me to be complicit in that institution by the time our wedding day comes.But to answer you in that fashion is to push you off with a reed. Let me give you a real answer:Firstly, in the simplest sense, marriage is nothing more than a contract. The same way that individuals can have contracts for financial or business purposes, and ought to have absolute freedom of contract without fear of government intervention and government prohibition of mutually-consenting contracts (Lochner), so too with marriage. A man and a woman – or a man and a man, or a man and a dog, or a man and a wooden table – ought to be able to set whatever contracts they want. If a man wants to give his power of attorney and hospital visitation rights to the mother of his children, or whether he wants to give those to his roommate, or to his homosexual romantic partner, or whatever, he ought to have that liberty. If marriage is a contract stipulating some sort of lifestyle union between two individuals (or, heck, twenty individuals), then *any* individuals ought to be able to form such a contract, and the government should not say that no, only members of the opposite sex can, e.g. receive each other’s hospital visitation rights. If twenty people want to give each other hospital visitation rights and declare each other their heirs, so be it, I say. This notion of limiting marriage to two individuals, and two individuals of the opposite sex, is absurd. Why cannot two people of the same sex, or twenty people, designate each other as “married” to each other for the purpose of whatever the financial and contractual impliciations of marriage are?Secondly, as much as it may horrify the readers of this blog, I am an Orthodox Jew. So for me, besides the contractual, legal aspects of marriage (as above), there is the purely theological aspect, namely marriage as a holy institution defined and mandated in a certain fashion by God. So I certainly do not want to eschew marriage; I merely want the government to stay the f’ing hell out marriage, and let me do it in my own Jewish manner, according to what I believe God wants, and not interfere. The same way that a Christian would not want the government regulating baptism, I don’t want the government regulating marriage. Marriage is *my* business for *me* to do the way *I* believe *my* religion mandates *me* to do *my* way. For the government to have *anything* to do with marriage whatsoever, such as banning homosexual marriage, is for the government to interfere with religion in a way I find unconscionable. As Roger Williams said, we need an absolute wall of separation between church and state, to protect the garden of the church from pernicious influence of the wilderness of the state. The same way I wouldn’t want Christians telling me, as a Jew, how to live my life, and making me live as a Christian, I don’t want the government telling *anyone* how to live their lives. We need to keep people from murdering and stealing and robbing and committing fraud, but beyond that, I say, “live and let live”, and I despise *any* form of coercion (governmental or otherwise) in which people presume to tell others how to live their lives.

Trackbacks

Leave a Reply